Windows 8: Such a disappointment

I don't know how many people use Wordpad for word processing and Paint for graphics. In the spirit of addressing your question Wordpad and Paint provide expected levels of functionality. Metro Mail? Not so much. Metro Mail is a step back from what was previously included. As an analogy it would be like Microsoft updating Wordpad to have the same functionality as Notepad. Users have come to expect a certain level of functionality out of Wordpad. If Microsoft were to strip out most of that functionality users would wonder why the new is better than the old when it doesn't do nearly as much as the old. This is an easy concept...where are you struggling with it?

Tell me, what features where included in the non-existent windows 7 mail client that metro mail lacks?

Quote:

Shit by what metric? What came before? Not so much. Shit compared to the time period in question? Not at all. Shit compared to today? You bet. The latter is where Metro Mail falls. By today's standards it's shit. It's the equivalent to win32 app capability from years ago. Which is the point I'm making.

Shit by the metric it's shit. You gotta be out of your gourd to think wordpad and paint where not shit way back in windows 95 came out. Even windows 1.0 had a severely gimped version of paint in it, compared to the pc paintbrush it was based on. Write (the precursor to wordpad) at least when it came out in 1985 was a wysiwyg word processor which was still somewhat of a new idea on IBM computable machines. It quickly become completely obsolete with a few years with wordperfect and word on windows.

Again the included apps where always shit except maybe windows 1.0 versions. No amount of hand waving is going to change that. Yet it in no way, shape, or form stopped people from think win32 was useless, unlike what you keep insisting it does for metro

I don't know how many people use Wordpad for word processing and Paint for graphics. In the spirit of addressing your question Wordpad and Paint provide expected levels of functionality. Metro Mail? Not so much. Metro Mail is a step back from what was previously included. As an analogy it would be like Microsoft updating Wordpad to have the same functionality as Notepad. Users have come to expect a certain level of functionality out of Wordpad. If Microsoft were to strip out most of that functionality users would wonder why the new is better than the old when it doesn't do nearly as much as the old. This is an easy concept...where are you struggling with it?

Tell me, what features where included in the non-existent windows 7 mail client that metro mail lacks?

Oh please! The fact no e-mail program was included was covered fairly well by Throatwobbler Mangrove in his post here:

If the best you can come up with is "Windows 7 doesn't include an e-mail client" then I'm not going to bother wasting time with you as you are obviously unable to comprehend the discussion being put forth.

LordDaMan wrote:

Quote:

Shit by what metric? What came before? Not so much. Shit compared to the time period in question? Not at all. Shit compared to today? You bet. The latter is where Metro Mail falls. By today's standards it's shit. It's the equivalent to win32 app capability from years ago. Which is the point I'm making.

Shit by the metric it's shit.

Uh no. The capabilities of these programs were inline with the capabilities of the hardware and OS of the time. Compared to today they were shit. Compared to the era? Not so much. Unfortunately Metro Mail takes us all the way back to those days. The capabilities of Metro Mail are inline with what I would expect from a program back in 1992...not 2012.

If the best you can come up with is "Windows 7 doesn't include an e-mail client" then I'm not going to bother wasting time with you as you are obviously unable to comprehend the discussion being put forth.

Why don't you understand the simple fact I'm calling you out for a stupid comment? Windows 7 didn't come up with a client so it's impossible to say it was better. Saying that you could download another client isn't exactly a valid point when the discussion is what comes with windows

Quote:

Uh no. The capabilities of these programs were inline with the capabilities of the hardware and OS of the time. Compared to today they were shit....

Fine, show me proof that until early 1990s the majority of IBM compatible machines where only capable of monochrome. Then after you are done with that, explain to me why the program paint was based on was able to do 16 colors and paint was stuck with monochrome.

Also explain why word and wordperfect existed on windows the same time as write, but somehow write was all these computers where capable of at that time

Quote:

..compared to the era? Not so much. Unfortunately Metro Mail takes us all the way back to those days. The capabilities of Metro Mail are inline with what I would expect from a program back in 1992...not 2012.

If the best you can come up with is "Windows 7 doesn't include an e-mail client" then I'm not going to bother wasting time with you as you are obviously unable to comprehend the discussion being put forth.

Why don't you understand the simple fact I'm calling you out for a stupid comment? Windows 7 didn't come up with a client so it's impossible to say it was better.

Because it's a juvenile, small minded response by a fucktard who would rather engage in bullshit discussions than the spirit of the point being made. The reason one was not included was already given and a reference to that reason was provided. Not being included does not change the underlying argument. With that said I see no reason to discuss anything further with you. You're incapable of a mature, rational discussion.

The apps that came with Windows were always pathetic. Regedit vs Resplendent Registrar, command prompt vs Take Command, Windows Explorer vs a shitload of file managers that put Explorer to shame (and still do), Paint vs any gfx editor at the time, et cetera. The HW at the time would suffice for the above mentioned apps, still Microsoft decided to ship their OSs with severely hampered apps.

The problem is these programs are even more pathetic. If you're trying to convince someone the new thing you're offering is better than what preceded it you don't make the new more pathetic than the old.

Windows 7 didn't come up with a client so it's impossible to say it was better.

Oh please. Search for "Mail" in a Win7 install and you get a link to Windows Live Suite, which includes mail (gee, this sounds familiar). The fact that you have to go to the Internet to download it is irrelevant - and in fact with OEM installs, such as any PC from the Microsoft Store, it's included by default. It's pretty damned obvious it's what MS intends to be the default mail client, it wasn't installed by default because MS wanted to update it more frequently.

It was far superior to Vista Mail. Vista Mail was far superior to Outlook Express. Each previous version's free mail client from Microsoft was superior to the previous, except for Win8's.

Quote:

another client isn't exactly a valid point when the discussion is what comes with windows

You're being obnoxiously pedantic. And as mentioned, it does come with Windows installs from many OEM's, and MS themselves. And when it doesn't, it directs you immediately to the site to download the suite.

It's like saying Win7 has shit security because you have to download updates as soon as you bring it home.

It's funny that they separated it "for updates" since updating Windows live apps is far, far worse since they don't use Microsoft Update for some fucktarded reason. The 2011 version NEVER prompted me for an update. I only ever found out there was an update because I was having an issue with Photo Gallery and going to support told me there was an update. The 2012 version prompts me, but with a separate icon in the notification area.

I'm going to go with "avoiding regulatory bullshit" they might get into for bundling things into Windows more than "wanted to update it faster". After all, they're still being blasted for including a media player and browser in 2012. All hell might break lose if they bundle a mail client too.

Windows 7 didn't come up with a client so it's impossible to say it was better.

Oh please. Search for "Mail" in a Win7 install and you get a link to Windows Live Suite, which includes mail (gee, this sounds familiar). The fact that you have to go to the Internet to download it is irrelevant - and in fact with OEM installs, such as any PC from the Microsoft Store, it's included by default. It's pretty damned obvious it's what MS intends to be the default mail client, it wasn't installed by default because MS wanted to update it more frequently.

It was far superior to Vista Mail. Vista Mail was far superior to Outlook Express. Each previous version's free mail client from Microsoft was superior to the previous, except for Win8's.

Quote:

another client isn't exactly a valid point when the discussion is what comes with windows

You're being obnoxiously pedantic. And as mentioned, it does come with Windows installs from many OEM's, and MS themselves. And when it doesn't, it directs you immediately to the site to download the suite.

It's like saying Win7 has shit security because you have to download updates as soon as you bring it home.

I can download anti-virus programs after installing Windows, and many OEMs install an AV product in the default image for their products, does that make them default parts of Windows? No. The Live suite is an Option. Just like RSAT is an option. Sure they're core Windows products, but they are not 'default.' Mail in Win 8 is not an Option, it's installed by default on ALL copies.

I can download anti-virus programs after installing Windows, and many OEMs install an AV product in the default image for their products, does that make them default parts of Windows? No. The Live suite is an Option. Just like RSAT is an option. Sure they're core Windows products, but they are not 'default.' Mail in Win 8 is not an Option, it's installed by default on ALL copies.

Whether they're core products or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is the included mail program with Windows 8 lacks features of almost every other modern mail program. Including versions which can be downloaded at no cost. If Microsoft is going to sell people on Metro they should at least make the included program at least on par with every other e-mail program included with the OS or not. As it is the Metro Mail program is like taking a step back to the 1990's. It does nothing to help sell people on Metro applications. To the contrary it works against it. I'm amazed at how many people are so willing to step up and defend Microsoft's decision to showcase this PoS. They'd have been better off leaving this PoS out of the OS.

The problem is these programs are even more pathetic. If you're trying to convince someone the new thing you're offering is better than what preceded it you don't make the new more pathetic than the old.

Which programs? The ones I mentioned as alternatives for the native ones preinstalled? If that's the case, then you have never used DOPus, or Take Command, or any other of the ones I mentioned. Even today Windows Imaging is a POS when compared to just about a dozen free and/or commercial applications, and this feature wasn't even offered in Windows till years later they were popular as third party apps. Do you truly think Windows Explorer is an appropriate file manager? Seriously.

If the best you can come up with is "Windows 7 doesn't include an e-mail client" then I'm not going to bother wasting time with you as you are obviously unable to comprehend the discussion being put forth.

Why don't you understand the simple fact I'm calling you out for a stupid comment? Windows 7 didn't come up with a client so it's impossible to say it was better.

Because it's a juvenile, small minded response by a fucktard who would rather engage in bullshit discussions than the spirit of the point being made. The reason one was not included was already given and a reference to that reason was provided. Not being included does not change the underlying argument. With that said I see no reason to discuss anything further with you. You're incapable of a mature, rational discussion.

I notice you conveniently edited out the meat of my reply to focus on this. I guess when you don't really have any sort of real rebuttal one has to resort to stunts like this to try to hide that fact

Maybe it works just fine for Average Joe, and advanced (even slightly) users can download the free program that best suits their needs?

And for Windows RT, that free mail app is...?

The point is that MS wants to promote Metro apps, and Metro as an environment suitable for tablets and desktops. Harkening back to decades ago when MS had a monopoly on the only personal computing market in town is irrelevant. To make their mark in a much, much more competitive marketplace, it's important to be at least be in the same ballpark out of the gate with your new environment, and washing your hands of the responsibility to make compelling apps for the API you're promoting is well...a very odd approach to garnering consumer acceptance, to say the least.

I personally would rank the Metro apps included with Windows 8 that I have used as somewhere between "feeble" and "lame." I don't really see them so much as apps folks are supposed to work with in perpetuity but rather as proofs of concept intended to show that yes, things can be done with Metro.

Yes, but people like to buy finished products, not proofs of concept. They're spending money and when they compare the Win8 mail app on a Surface tablet to the built-in mail app on an Android or iPhone device, the only conclusion they will draw is that Microsoft must be joking.

I personally would rank the Metro apps included with Windows 8 that I have used as somewhere between "feeble" and "lame." I don't really see them so much as apps folks are supposed to work with in perpetuity but rather as proofs of concept intended to show that yes, things can be done with Metro.

Yes, but people like to buy finished products, not proofs of concept. They're spending money and when they compare the Win8 mail app on a Surface tablet to the built-in mail app on an Android or iPhone device, the only conclusion they will draw is that Microsoft must be joking.

Unless Android has dramatically improved its email app then that is pretty funny. Because every email app I've had experience with on Android has been utter shit if it wasn't the one connecting to gmail. Hell it was the reason I went iphone, at least it connected to activesync with an email app that while plain and not that great, worked.

I personally would rank the Metro apps included with Windows 8 that I have used as somewhere between "feeble" and "lame." I don't really see them so much as apps folks are supposed to work with in perpetuity but rather as proofs of concept intended to show that yes, things can be done with Metro.

Yes, but people like to buy finished products, not proofs of concept. They're spending money and when they compare the Win8 mail app on a Surface tablet to the built-in mail app on an Android or iPhone device, the only conclusion they will draw is that Microsoft must be joking.

Which is really sad considering the excellent mail client on Windows Phone.

The problem is these programs are even more pathetic. If you're trying to convince someone the new thing you're offering is better than what preceded it you don't make the new more pathetic than the old.

Which programs? The ones I mentioned as alternatives for the native ones preinstalled? If that's the case, then you have never used DOPus, or Take Command, or any other of the ones I mentioned. Even today Windows Imaging is a POS when compared to just about a dozen free and/or commercial applications, and this feature wasn't even offered in Windows till years later they were popular as third party apps. Do you truly think Windows Explorer is an appropriate file manager? Seriously.

You clearly seem to be missing the point. The point isn't the included applications have to be the best. Or that they need to be better than third party. The point is they should provide a basic level of functionality users have come to expect from a program. Metro Mail is like taking a step back in time when it comes to capabilities. The fact you can install a third party mail client which has more capability is irrelevant. If Microsoft wants to showcase Metro then they should at least ensure the included applications meet some basic expectations.

The problem is these programs are even more pathetic. If you're trying to convince someone the new thing you're offering is better than what preceded it you don't make the new more pathetic than the old.

Which programs? The ones I mentioned as alternatives for the native ones preinstalled? If that's the case, then you have never used DOPus, or Take Command, or any other of the ones I mentioned. Even today Windows Imaging is a POS when compared to just about a dozen free and/or commercial applications, and this feature wasn't even offered in Windows till years later they were popular as third party apps. Do you truly think Windows Explorer is an appropriate file manager? Seriously.

You clearly seem to be missing the point. The point isn't the included applications have to be the best. Or that they need to be better than third party. The point is they should provide a basic level of functionality users have come to expect from a program. Metro Mail is like taking a step back in time when it comes to capabilities. The fact you can install a third party mail client which has more capability is irrelevant. If Microsoft wants to showcase Metro then they should at least ensure the included applications meet some basic expectations.

The point I am making is much widespread and important though. A mail client is important to some users, others go with web based email and fuck it. That's what I see the trend is, and that's the most comfortable way t go IMO. However not being provided with top notch apps to image the system, to playback videos and music, to handle any and every file action, etc, is certainly more encompassing. Microsoft has always included shitty apps in their OS history. That you feel the current email client is lesser than the previous one is perhaps telling you that MS doesn't give a shit about email other than the web basd variety. The cloud movement that began a few years ago would seem to go hand in hand with this philosophy, and I, for one, totally agree with the change in that regard.

The point I am making is much widespread and important though. A mail client is important to some users, others go with web based email and fuck it.

Then why include a mail client at all?

s@nDOk@n wrote:

That's what I see the trend is, and that's the most comfortable way t go IMO. However not being provided with top notch apps to image the system, to playback videos and music, to handle any and every file action, etc, is certainly more encompassing. Microsoft has always included shitty apps in their OS history. That you feel the current email client is lesser than the previous one is perhaps telling you that MS doesn't give a shit about email other than the web basd variety. The cloud movement that began a few years ago would seem to go hand in hand with this philosophy, and I, for one, totally agree with the change in that regard.

Again you seem to be missing the point. I am not expecting top notch applications. I'm expecting applications which provide at least the same level of capabilities as those which predate them. Even more so when said applications are supposed to show case your new shiny. If the people who do use client based e-mail programs, and there are a lot of them out there, find the new lacking compared to the old then they're going to conclude the new is garbage and question the need for it. Metro is already controversial enough. Why compound the controversy with sub-par applications?

My expectations for apps on a tablet are different, too. I might tolerate a shitty built-in mail client on a desktop OS since I'll be installing tons of other programs anyway, but I'd want a decent (on par with iOS's) one on the Surface.

I can't really give MS a pass "since they've always included shitty apps in their OS history" if we're talking about tablets. I don't think the argument that "something has always been shit, so you shouldn't expect new products to be any better" is a good one in general, actually.

The point I am making is much widespread and important though. A mail client is important to some users, others go with web based email and fuck it.

Then why include a mail client at all?

s@nDOk@n wrote:

That's what I see the trend is, and that's the most comfortable way t go IMO. However not being provided with top notch apps to image the system, to playback videos and music, to handle any and every file action, etc, is certainly more encompassing. Microsoft has always included shitty apps in their OS history. That you feel the current email client is lesser than the previous one is perhaps telling you that MS doesn't give a shit about email other than the web basd variety. The cloud movement that began a few years ago would seem to go hand in hand with this philosophy, and I, for one, totally agree with the change in that regard.

Again you seem to be missing the point. I am not expecting top notch applications. I'm expecting applications which provide at least the same level of capabilities as those which predate them. Even more so when said applications are supposed to show case your new shiny. If the people who do use client based e-mail programs, and there are a lot of them out there, find the new lacking compared to the old then they're going to conclude the new is garbage and question the need for it. Metro is already controversial enough. Why compound the controversy with sub-par applications?

Why include a mail client? Beats me. I would have made it an optional download instead.

Again, I find graver the fact that Windows didn't offer an imaging app until, what? Vista? Also, the success % of System Restore used to be in the 60s with Vista and a bit better with 7. WMP is a POS to watch videos, etc, etc. I see your point, you feel the current mail app is worse than the previous one, and I truly can't argue that much on that front, since I use exclusively web based email, so I will concede the point that W8's mail client is poorer than what you used to use in W7.

XYPlorer, Explorer2, DOPus, TC (although I couldn't really use that butt ugly UI) all put Explorer to shame, and a few free file managers as well. KMPlayer, VLC, MPCHC, etc all blow WMP to shit and back. About a dozen apps (free & commercial) destroy the imaging app in W7 and 8. IOW, I see your point, but I find more salient that the entire philosophy when marketing an OS be to cram it with half baked apps instead of good ones.

I'm using IE 10 Desktop on Windows 8. Every-time I open a pdf file, it will go to a Metro based pdf reader app.

How do I open pdf files in IE 10 desktop mode?

You can change the default apps for each file type in the settings. Go to search -> settings -> type "default", then you can associate PDFs with Adobe Reader or whatever other desktop PDF app you like. Windows will also pop up a notification asking if you want to change the default the first time you open a file of some type for which alternate apps are available.

The point I am making is much widespread and important though. A mail client is important to some users, others go with web based email and fuck it.

Then why include a mail client at all?

s@nDOk@n wrote:

That's what I see the trend is, and that's the most comfortable way t go IMO. However not being provided with top notch apps to image the system, to playback videos and music, to handle any and every file action, etc, is certainly more encompassing. Microsoft has always included shitty apps in their OS history. That you feel the current email client is lesser than the previous one is perhaps telling you that MS doesn't give a shit about email other than the web basd variety. The cloud movement that began a few years ago would seem to go hand in hand with this philosophy, and I, for one, totally agree with the change in that regard.

Again you seem to be missing the point. I am not expecting top notch applications. I'm expecting applications which provide at least the same level of capabilities as those which predate them. Even more so when said applications are supposed to show case your new shiny. If the people who do use client based e-mail programs, and there are a lot of them out there, find the new lacking compared to the old then they're going to conclude the new is garbage and question the need for it. Metro is already controversial enough. Why compound the controversy with sub-par applications?

Why include a mail client? Beats me. I would have made it an optional download instead.

Again, I find graver the fact that Windows didn't offer an imaging app until, what? Vista? Also, the success % of System Restore used to be in the 60s with Vista and a bit better with 7. WMP is a POS to watch videos, etc, etc. I see your point, you feel the current mail app is worse than the previous one, and I truly can't argue that much on that front, since I use exclusively web based email, so I will concede the point that W8's mail client is poorer than what you used to use in W7.

XYPlorer, Explorer2, DOPus, TC (although I couldn't really use that butt ugly UI) all put Explorer to shame, and a few free file managers as well. KMPlayer, VLC, MPCHC, etc all blow WMP to shit and back. About a dozen apps (free & commercial) destroy the imaging app in W7 and 8. IOW, I see your point, but I find more salient that the entire philosophy when marketing an OS be to cram it with half baked apps instead of good ones.

You're obviously unable to grasp what I'm saying or you refuse to for the sake of arguing.

The point I am making is much widespread and important though. A mail client is important to some users, others go with web based email and fuck it.

Then why include a mail client at all?

s@nDOk@n wrote:

That's what I see the trend is, and that's the most comfortable way t go IMO. However not being provided with top notch apps to image the system, to playback videos and music, to handle any and every file action, etc, is certainly more encompassing. Microsoft has always included shitty apps in their OS history. That you feel the current email client is lesser than the previous one is perhaps telling you that MS doesn't give a shit about email other than the web basd variety. The cloud movement that began a few years ago would seem to go hand in hand with this philosophy, and I, for one, totally agree with the change in that regard.

Again you seem to be missing the point. I am not expecting top notch applications. I'm expecting applications which provide at least the same level of capabilities as those which predate them. Even more so when said applications are supposed to show case your new shiny. If the people who do use client based e-mail programs, and there are a lot of them out there, find the new lacking compared to the old then they're going to conclude the new is garbage and question the need for it. Metro is already controversial enough. Why compound the controversy with sub-par applications?

Why include a mail client? Beats me. I would have made it an optional download instead.

Again, I find graver the fact that Windows didn't offer an imaging app until, what? Vista? Also, the success % of System Restore used to be in the 60s with Vista and a bit better with 7. WMP is a POS to watch videos, etc, etc. I see your point, you feel the current mail app is worse than the previous one, and I truly can't argue that much on that front, since I use exclusively web based email, so I will concede the point that W8's mail client is poorer than what you used to use in W7.

XYPlorer, Explorer2, DOPus, TC (although I couldn't really use that butt ugly UI) all put Explorer to shame, and a few free file managers as well. KMPlayer, VLC, MPCHC, etc all blow WMP to shit and back. About a dozen apps (free & commercial) destroy the imaging app in W7 and 8. IOW, I see your point, but I find more salient that the entire philosophy when marketing an OS be to cram it with half baked apps instead of good ones.

You're obviously unable to grasp what I'm saying or you refuse to for the sake of arguing.

WTF are you talking about? I happily conceded the point about the mail client. Did you ever read my post? Are you posting without reading what I write, just perusing? OK, yeah, the current mail client blows, and the previous didn't. BFD! How about the reat of the apps that blow since Windows started and never got any better? I am done with you man. You are a one-trick pony. Bye.

I feel like a goddamned old man now. I spent a half-hour goofing off in the Sony Store yesterday on their tablets/touchscreens and it took me a little while to quite reaching for my monitor to scroll shit when I got home. Maybe they're on to something. Every screen should be a touch screen! ;D

I'm using IE 10 Desktop on Windows 8. Every-time I open a pdf file, it will go to a Metro based pdf reader app.

How do I open pdf files in IE 10 desktop mode?

When you install Adobe PDF reader or any other type of desktop PDF app, the next time you open a PDF you'll get a Metro notification in the upper right informing you "You have other applications that can open this type of file". Click it and it will let you select the Adobe PDF reader as the default.

Very annoying that Windows finally gets built in PDF reading...and it's restricted to a full-screen Metro app.

I feel like a goddamned old man now. I spent a half-hour goofing off in the Sony Store yesterday on their tablets/touchscreens and it took me a little while to quite reaching for my monitor to scroll shit when I got home. Maybe they're on to something. Every screen should be a touch screen! ;D

Supposedly, the big revelation Steven Sinofsky had a few years back that resulted in Windows 8 occurred when he was at an electronics trade show and noticed that pretty much every PC screen he looked at had fingerprints and smudges on it. While I'm fairly sure no one in this forum would ever touch their screens, that's not at all true for a sizable group of less "refined" PC users. With the introduction of Windows 8 that group is only going to grow.

And for all the Arsians who are about to descend on me and instruct me on the horrors of "gorilla arm," I agree with you. I think a day spent reaching across a desktop to interact with a 24" monitor would be a long day indeed. However, there must be times when it seems natural to do that, or else why do people keep poking at monitors? Go into any PC store today and you can see a microcosm of what Sinofsky saw. I suspect touch screens are going to be a growth market over the next few years, not because they supplant the mouse, but because they naturally supplement it. Similarly, I expect touch screens to complement but not replace touch pads on laptops.

Right now touch screens seem to be the key component stalling the growth of Windows 8. OEMs can't supply the touch screen PCs fast enough while non-touch Windows 8 machines are sitting on store shelves. In a year or two screen suppliers will catch up with demand, prices will fall and soon every Windows PC will be touch enabled. I'm curious to see how Apple and the Linux community respond to that reality.

I would love for my laptop to have a touchscreen. It would be for quick, simple navigation, not scrolling long pages or hours of use. Just quick taps and swipes here and there. Hell, I have a second monitor at my work desk that's perfectly angled for me to quickly reach up and tap something. I think Aero Snap would feel better dragging with my finger.

I would love for my laptop to have a touchscreen. It would be for quick, simple navigation, not scrolling long pages or hours of use. Just quick taps and swipes here and there. Hell, I have a second monitor at my work desk that's perfectly angled for me to quickly reach up and tap something. I think Aero Snap would feel better dragging with my finger.

I have a laptop with a touch screen, and have found that I touch the screen more than I screw with the trackpad. When it's close enough to reach, it just makes more sense.

I guess it depends on what you expect out of Metro Mail but for me I've always seen it as first and foremost a front end for Microsoft services with it being compatible with anything else a matter of good luck rather than necessarily Microsoft going out of their way. Long story short though you can install Live Essentials and Microsoft Office 2010 works great on Windows 8 so I guess it depends on what your expectations are. As for the Surface, I'm surprised that there wasn't a version of the Surface (ARM) that included Office 2013 which also included Outlook as well.

My main gripe is the lack of a roadmap regarding traditional desktop applications and whether we'll see WinRT be expanded to include the ability to create desktop and metro applications as well. I remember seeing a comment on an MSDN forum from a Microsoft employee regarding 'releasing information in the future' so I wonder whether this 'Blue' that is being thrown around by the talking heads in the media is addressing that concern. I just hope that Microsoft do realise that Metro won't simply scale up when it comes to large complex applications like Creative Suite and Office thus we'll seem them also show a roadmap forward for desktop developers as well.

I guess it depends on what you expect out of Metro Mail but for me I've always seen it as first and foremost a front end for Microsoft services with it being compatible with anything else a matter of good luck rather than necessarily Microsoft going out of their way.

I rather think that the main focus of that mail client is for tablet users, not desktop. Having a mail client full screen makes very little sense on a traditional desktop: you very often need to refer to external document or use the mail as reference for something else. No, "docking" the app doesn't work very well in that case. On a tablet, however, it's not that bad.

Also, have a look at the iPad mail: that client doesn't have a much larger feature set than the Metro mail app and yet it's still usable... on a tablet.

So, I think the idea is that you'd use the metro app on a tablet device and Outlook on a regular desktop.

Does it make sense ? For Redmond, perhaps. It's definitely not filling my needs either at work or at home but, on the other hand, I got enough other options available not to care very much.

However, there is one huuuge failing of Win8 that nobody apparently mentioned: the inability of desktop and metro apps to interact with each other. I understand the reasoning behind it (there is no point in implementing a tight sandbox if you give every program an easy way out) but it still means, for instance, that you can't use any of the new notification stuff from "real" programs or that applications cannot use each other's functionality (no document embedding, for instance). That makes the whole "metro" side of the OS way less useful that it could (and should) be.

I feel like a goddamned old man now. I spent a half-hour goofing off in the Sony Store yesterday on their tablets/touchscreens and it took me a little while to quite reaching for my monitor to scroll shit when I got home. Maybe they're on to something. Every screen should be a touch screen! ;D

Supposedly, the big revelation Steven Sinofsky had a few years back that resulted in Windows 8 occurred when he was at an electronics trade show and noticed that pretty much every PC screen he looked at had fingerprints and smudges on it. While I'm fairly sure no one in this forum would ever touch their screens, that's not at all true for a sizable group of less "refined" PC users. With the introduction of Windows 8 that group is only going to grow.

Or people were just pointing at things, like they're apt to do at electronics trade shows.

And for all the Arsians who are about to descend on me and instruct me on the horrors of "gorilla arm," I agree with you. I think a day spent reaching across a desktop to interact with a 24" monitor would be a long day indeed. However, there must be times when it seems natural to do that, or else why do people keep poking at monitors? Go into any PC store today and you can see a microcosm of what Sinofsky saw. I suspect touch screens are going to be a growth market over the next few years, not because they supplant the mouse, but because they naturally supplement it. Similarly, I expect touch screens to complement but not replace touch pads on laptops.

However, there is one huuuge failing of Win8 that nobody apparently mentioned: the inability of desktop and metro apps to interact with each other. I understand the reasoning behind it (there is no point in implementing a tight sandbox if you give every program an easy way out) but it still means, for instance, that you can't use any of the new notification stuff from "real" programs or that applications cannot use each other's functionality (no document embedding, for instance). That makes the whole "metro" side of the OS way less useful that it could (and should) be.

IMO "Metro" is the direction Microsoft is heading. Going forward they want "real" applications to be written for "Metro". Desktop is now for backwards compatibility.

I feel like a goddamned old man now. I spent a half-hour goofing off in the Sony Store yesterday on their tablets/touchscreens and it took me a little while to quite reaching for my monitor to scroll shit when I got home. Maybe they're on to something. Every screen should be a touch screen! ;D

Supposedly, the big revelation Steven Sinofsky had a few years back that resulted in Windows 8 occurred when he was at an electronics trade show and noticed that pretty much every PC screen he looked at had fingerprints and smudges on it. While I'm fairly sure no one in this forum would ever touch their screens, that's not at all true for a sizable group of less "refined" PC users. With the introduction of Windows 8 that group is only going to grow.

Or people were just pointing at things, like they're apt to do at electronics trade shows.

And for all the Arsians who are about to descend on me and instruct me on the horrors of "gorilla arm," I agree with you. I think a day spent reaching across a desktop to interact with a 24" monitor would be a long day indeed. However, there must be times when it seems natural to do that, or else why do people keep poking at monitors? Go into any PC store today and you can see a microcosm of what Sinofsky saw. I suspect touch screens are going to be a growth market over the next few years, not because they supplant the mouse, but because they naturally supplement it. Similarly, I expect touch screens to complement but not replace touch pads on laptops.

I poke at monitors when I'm pointing things out to people.

Eww....

One good thing about the move to touch screens is at least they will be easier to clean after the compulsive screen pokers pass through my life!